| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Standard Spending Assessment (Southend)
4. Mr. David Amess (Southend, West): What recent representations he has received on the level of the standard spending assessment for Southend for 2000-01. [116144]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Beverley Hughes): Southend-on-Sea borough council wrote to the Department on 22 December, during our consultation period, commenting on the local government finance settlement for 2000-01. We also received inquiries from the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor).
Mr. Amess: Is the hon. Lady aware that, a few weeks ago, I was invited by the Labour/Liberal-controlled council to meet a Health Minister to discuss the crisis in social services in Southend? When the delegation told the Minister that the council was having to close old folks' homes, introduce charges for people with learning disabilities and increase charges for home helps, the Minister helpfully suggested that representations be made about the standard spending assessment. Will the hon. Lady advise Labour councillors on how they can stop further cuts in Southend?
Ms Hughes: My information does not accord with that of the hon. Gentleman. He is right to say that a meeting took place and that the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), asked the council to submit plans for extra money to deal with social services issues. However, Southend did not request extra funding from the budget; in the end, it informed the Department of Health of an underspend of £31,000 from the partnership fund, which it was able to use.
In general terms, the council is increasing its planned spending by almost 6 per cent.: it is providing for education growth of 7 per cent. and social services growth of 4 per cent. The Tory group did not even bother to submit an opposition budget. Provision is being made for increased investment in services, which stands in stark contrast to what happened under the previous Government, when there were rises in council tax and cuts in services.
Housing Density (South-East)
6. Jane Griffiths (Reading, East): What plans he has to increase housing density in the south-east of England. [116147]
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. Nick Raynsford): Planning policy guidance note 3, which we issued on 7 March, makes it clear that local authorities should plan for quality development and more efficient
use of land. They should avoid housing densities of less than 30 dwellings per hectare net and encourage developments of between 30 and 50 dwellings per hectare net. Those policies are also reflected in the draft changes to the regional planning guidance for the south-east, which we published on 27 March.
Jane Griffiths: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is vital to increase housing density in areas such as my constituency in the heart of the Thames valley, in the interests not only of sustainability, but of affordability, so that key workers such as nurses, teachers and bus drivers can afford to come and live in such areas?
Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend makes two valid points. First, she highlights the importance of concentrating development in brownfield sites and of contributing toward urban renaissance, both of which form a crucial part of our planning policy guidance on housing and our regional planning guidance for the south-east. Secondly, she emphasises the importance of doing more to house people in need, who have difficulty obtaining housing in areas of great pressure, such as the Thames valley. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is shortly to make a statement on our housing Green Paper, in which we expand on our policies to meet those objectives.
Mr. Archie Norman (Tunbridge Wells): I welcome the Deputy Prime Minister back to the House after four weeks' absence. Now that we know what was in the Budget, we understand why he disappeared to Brazil. We also understand why, unusually, there was no Budget debate on Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions spending--there is to be hardly any DETR spending.
Will the Minister for Housing and Planning explain his arithmetic on the question of housing densities? Does he recall that the Government's proposed building rate will force councils in the south-east to build 900,000 new houses in the next 20 years, and that the Government insist that 60 per cent. of those dwellings should be built on brownfield sites? Will he confirm that 60 per cent. of 900,000 means 540,000 new houses on brownfield land? Does he recall the House of Commons Library estimate that only a maximum of 10,000 hectares are available on brownfield land? Can he tell us, therefore, what density level is needed to build 540,000 houses on 10,000 hectares, and how that compares with the density levels that he just cited and those already achieved in major cities such as London and Manchester?
Mr. Raynsford:
May I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Dispatch Box? He has shown a certain reticence about appearing since his appointment. He has clearly misunderstood the main thrust of PPG3 and our regional planning guidance for the south-east. Predict and provide, which was the hallmark of his party's Government, is dead. We are no longer producing 20-year projections of housing.
The hon. Gentleman knows that we are concentrating on annual build rates, which in the case of the south-east is 43,000. Looking at the figures, he will realise that there is a plentiful supply of brownfield sites to meet the needs
of the south-east over the next five years. His figures are wrong. In future, he should do his homework before coming to the House.
Mr. Norman:
The figures are not mine--they come from the House of Commons Library. They are the Minister's figures, and it is a matter of pure arithmetic. He has not attempted to answer the question, so let me answer it for him. The answer is 54 houses per hectare--higher than the figure that he cited, and higher than the density achieved in London. That target is regarded as wholly unachievable by every council leader in the south-east. Incidentally, it is no good the Minister speaking about five years, since every local council has to produce a structure plan for 10 years or more.
As that level of density is unachievable, does the Minister concede that many thousands of extra houses will be built on green fields? While we are about it, will he say who will pay for all the knock-on infrastructure--2,000 km of extra roads, 300,000 new school places, and 3,000 new hospital places? How will he deal with the extra commuting and congestion in the most congested parts of the country? Is it not time that he recognised that his entire policy is not just a disaster for the countryside, but unaffordable? As the Deputy Prime Minister said to the Prime Minister,
The hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand that our new policy means the end of predict and provide. It means annual build rates, not 20-year projections; concentrating development on brownfield sites; and getting higher quality developments in the cities as part of an urban renaissance. It is about time that his party woke up to the reality, rather than looking back to the disaster that the Conservatives caused when they were in office.
Dr. Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test):
Will my hon. Friend comment on the view that a greater density of housing requires a lower land take? Has his Department done any work on the relationship of higher density to lower land take, particularly in the light of the various figures put forward for housing in the south-east, and in view of the land that has already been allocated for housing in local authority plans?
Mr. Raynsford:
As my hon. Friend knows, the Government have taken action where the previous Government did nothing, by publishing the national land use database to give us basic information about the availability of land on which plans can then be drawn up for development on brownfield sites. We will take that forward, as the NLUD needs to be improved over time. It has made an important start, but we can do better. Through capacity studies, we will also develop a closer analysis of what can be achieved. I emphasise to my hon. Friend that the key objective is to produce high-quality
7. Mr. Christopher Fraser (Mid-Dorset and North Poole):
What estimate his Department has made of the increase in the number of single person households over the next 20 years. [116148]
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. Nick Raynsford):
The latest, 1996-based, household projections suggest a net increase of 3.12 million households in England over the 20-year period from 1996 to 2016. Of these 2.13 million, some two thirds of the total, will be made up of one person living by him or herself.
Mr. Fraser:
With those figures in mind, does the Minister agree with me that local people should determine their local housing requirements rather than the Government setting arbitrary figures? What consultation has he had with Purbeck district council, which has written to me today, and with Poole and East Dorset district councils in my constituency, about this matter? Without consultation, the Government's proposals mean the wrong houses for the wrong people in the wrong places.
Mr. Raynsford:
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the regional planning guidance for the south-west is undergoing examination in public. Clearly it would not be proper for me to respond on a detailed point, which will come to us for decision after the examination in public.
The hon. Gentleman's figures are wrong. It is important to ensure that there is provision for people in need, and a high proportion of need comes from the sons and daughters of people who live in the area, who want to continue to live there. Older people, the largest proportion of single people, now expect to have independent homes in their old age. That is another area of need. It would be a serious disservice to the needs of single people, either young or old, if no housing provision were to be made for them in their area. Regional planning guidance is an appropriate framework in which the necessary need can be identified and from which recommendations can be brought forward for individual counties.
Mr. Geraint Davies (Croydon, Central):
Is my hon. Friend in dialogue with the Treasury over possible fiscal opportunities to reduce the proportion of single-person households, especially in respect of housing benefit rules that encourage adult children to leave home prematurely and in terms of taxes on second homes, equal VAT treatment for both conversion and new build, and multi-occupancy incentives for retired people, for example? Will my hon. Friend consider a portfolio of possible fiscal measures to encourage higher levels of occupancy?
Mr. Raynsford:
My hon. Friend raises a number of matters that will be expanded on by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister when we come to the statement on the housing Green Paper. It is integral to our
Mr. Peter Lilley (Hitchin and Harpenden):
If the Minister's figures are correct and the bulk of new housing is needed for single-person households, will he reconsider the decision to build 10,000 houses on the green belt in my constituency, given that little of that housing will be suitable, either in type or in location, for single people?
Mr. Raynsford:
The right hon. Gentleman sounds rather like a gramophone record on this subject. He shows an inability to understand the basic framework on which Hertfordshire county council came forward with its proposals. He will know that there are no detailed plans at this stage for the composition of the housing stock and the proportions that will be single-person units, family units, and units suitable for the elderly. The right hon. Gentleman's ridiculous suggestion reveals something--the attitude of mind that was characteristic of the Conservative Government he served, under whom executive homes were encouraged to proliferate throughout the greenfield land in the south-east. We are ending that nonsense, for which the previous Government were responsible.
Mr. Damian Green (Ashford):
The Minister seems not to realise that his answer to this question wrecks the case that he made in answer to the previous question. Does he not accept that, on the basis of the Government's household projection figures, more than two thirds of the homes that are needed are required for single and mainly elderly people? His plans to build tens of thousands more homes than local authorities say they need will inevitably encourage developers to build more profitable three or four-bedroomed homes, which are just what single-person households do not need. Will the Minister not acknowledge that his policy attracts working-age people out of inner cities, threatens our green fields and ensures that, as long as he is in charge, we will continue building the wrong houses in the wrong places?
Mr. Raynsford:
I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman clearly prepared his answer before hearing my reply to the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies). I made it clear that we are not following Conservative party policy, which encouraged the proliferation of three and four-bedroomed executive homes.
fancy dancing with figures is counterproductive.
Mr. Raynsford:
It seemed to be quite a long time before the hon. Gentleman got to the point. May I remind him that what he is suggesting comes a little rich from the party that was represented by greenfield building all over the south-east, out-of-town shopping centres, motorways driven across countryside, and by the contempt for the environment in the south-east which characterised the term of that party in power?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |